This analysis is rather bearish relative to the FLD/price interaction one would expect when moving out of an 18 month trough. From what I understand of Hurst phasing, this bearishness would normally be the catalyst to re-evaluate the phasing of the 18M trough in October.
I note that you're not re-evaluating the phasing. Is that because the time frequency analysis still supports the placement of the 18M trough in October or is there something I'm missing?
Commonality too. It's been a fairly standard move from a 18 month component that is assumed to be more bearish than the last. That said there is variance between markets, with the DJIA, FTSE etc rising notably stronger. Last few days are likely marking 20 week nominal peak occurred recently.
I was assuming that price would follow the FLD/price interaction "model" out of each trough, regardless of the underlying trend. I assumed the underlying trend would simply result in targets not being met and/or price not finding support at interaction B.
Clearly if underlying trend was stationary the market would simply be a trading range for eternity. That said, within larger components there are periods of relative stationarity, pause zones as noted by Hurst. A recent example is in Gold where the excellent signal around 55 days was very profitable.
This analysis is rather bearish relative to the FLD/price interaction one would expect when moving out of an 18 month trough. From what I understand of Hurst phasing, this bearishness would normally be the catalyst to re-evaluate the phasing of the 18M trough in October.
I note that you're not re-evaluating the phasing. Is that because the time frequency analysis still supports the placement of the 18M trough in October or is there something I'm missing?
Commonality too. It's been a fairly standard move from a 18 month component that is assumed to be more bearish than the last. That said there is variance between markets, with the DJIA, FTSE etc rising notably stronger. Last few days are likely marking 20 week nominal peak occurred recently.
I was assuming that price would follow the FLD/price interaction "model" out of each trough, regardless of the underlying trend. I assumed the underlying trend would simply result in targets not being met and/or price not finding support at interaction B.
No, this never happens, underlying trend (Sigma-L) is constantly changing (slowly). See this post: https://www.sigma-l.net/p/underlying-trend-hurst-cycles
Clearly if underlying trend was stationary the market would simply be a trading range for eternity. That said, within larger components there are periods of relative stationarity, pause zones as noted by Hurst. A recent example is in Gold where the excellent signal around 55 days was very profitable.